site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31303 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look at yourself.

Trawling lists to tally up your racial quotas. Wringing your hands over the tragic underrepresentation of your preferred demographic. So determined to believe that skin color (or however you can most favorably slice the boundaries) determines moral worth and political value. Behold the Übermensch!

You are giving an object lesson in why identity politics suck. You are recreating the field of grievance studies. I have no doubt that you could give me a dozen reasons why the stereotypically progressive position is foolish and immoral, so why are you wasting your time recreating it?

Have some self-respect.

Look at yourself.

Have some self-respect.

Make it less personal, please.

He's not wrong though.

As @netsack says, this whole thread is an object lesson in why identity politics suck. It literally makes people stupid and is fundamentally corrosive to the building of any sort of community.

When I mod someone for breaking the rules, it doesn't mean I disagree with what they said.

Why am I having the same argument with you about things I tried to explain to @FarNearEverywhere? Being "right" doesn't mean you get to sling insults.

It's not an insult though, it's an appeal to be better.

That cuts both ways, though.

I think @coffee_enjoyer has principles which discourage affirmative action, reparations, and otherwise favoring most ethnicities over others. Is it not fair to demand he apply those rules fairly even when Jews are involved?

Now you're picking up a rifle? You're becoming the very thing that you seek to destroy! Don't you see that the enemy is fielding rifles, which they use to harass and subjugate us? You want to be like the enemy? Fight them with a spear like a real man.

Turnabout is fair play.

On the object level I somewhat agree, but your argument if taken seriously would disqualify all accusations of hypocrisy. It is totally fair to accuse your opponents of not following their own principles, and doing so doesn't require adopting those principles.

I am specifically accusing OP of adopting principles when it is convenient for taking shots at The Jews.

I have no doubt that you could give me a dozen reasons why the stereotypically progressive position is foolish and immoral, so why are you wasting your time recreating it?

The reason that the progressive position is foolish is not because representation doesn't matter, particularly in elite institutions. The reason the position is foolish because it provides a completely false model explaining patterns in representation, a false model that is designed to reduce the representation of non-Jewish white people with mechanisms like affirmative action.

If someone became president and all of a sudden Jewish representation reverted to their population representation of ~2%, I have a feeling you would attribute meaning to that, and no doubt @2rafa would as well. But whites are already underrepresented in key areas of intellectual and cultural life, so there's not much room for them to "take comfort" in those trends in any way.

2rafa would completely panic if Jewish representation in elite institutions fell to below their population representation within the course of a few decades. But he'll equivocate with some "no big deal" handwaving to explain why non-Jewish white people have no reason to complain about their own representation.

I--not who you're responding to-- thought this while reading but suddenly doubted myself. Makes me realize I don't actually know who the hell any of you people are. (And no my name isn't George, either.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats